Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

CramCycle · 13-05-2015 08:09AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It is apparent to me that the media are firmly behind the Yes camp. Pollsters are media organisations.
I could easily conduct a poll that would return a clear majority either way just by selecting where and among whom I conduct it.

That would be a biased poll as you have determined what you would like the response to be before you set out. Most polling companies have guidelines and methods to avoid this as much as is reasonably possible. It is in their best interest to be unbiased.

There is only one poll that counts as the Brits will tell you.

+ 1

My wife was talking to a guy who is in charge of one of the yes campaigns. He is by no means complacent. He is very worried.

My own biased and anecdotal evidence is that the split is close to the polls, too much complacency and low turn out because of it, he is right to be concerned.

The 23 year old I was telling you about is a barman. A customer asked him how he was voting. He said "No".
She went absolutely spare. "Hit the roof" was the term he used.

I asked a no voter about their reasons, they mentioned surrogacy and I said that the referendum had nothing to do with that. They then went into a long speech about congenital heart defects and family history and how gay marriage would cause a spike in surrogacy and then a spike in these issues. I pointed out that legislation means that if this is or was going to happen it would do so regardless of SSM. They then got annoyed and stormed off, I brought it up a few days later and they turned on me saying I was too angry and uunreasonable and they could not and did not want to discuss it with me.

Point being, anecdotes are just that, maybe your barman just didn't want to listen.

They had 800 years of it

We didn't

The yes side need to try debating rather than berating

There are some who do and some who don't on both sides. I have found the No side far more unreasonable but I could be biased.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 13-05-2015 10:22AM

CramCycle wrote: »

There are some who do and some who don't on both sides. I have found the No side far more unreasonable but I could be biased.

In fairness, apart from your good self and two other Yes posters, I haven't found the Yes side to be open to discussion at all.

All they want is a conversation that starts with "Art thou a witch?"

Ave Sodalis · 13-05-2015 10:25AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, apart from your good self and two other Yes posters, I haven't found the Yes side to be open to discussion at all.

All they want is a conversation that starts with "Art thou a witch?"

In fairness, I've tried having a discussion with you but it's very nearly impossible when you keep twisting things and stick stubbornly to arguments that have nothing to do with the referendum.

sydthebeat · 13-05-2015 10:29AM

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/47027/0/

timetogo · 13-05-2015 10:47AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:
...
NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL

I think this will make not one jot of a difference to most voters. We knew this already. Just read back over this thread and see the same explained to no voters many times over. Then you get posters saying the yes voters aren't open to discussion

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 11:01AM

timetogo wrote: »

I think this will make not one jot of a difference to most voters. We knew this already. Just read back over this thread and see the same explained to no voters many times over. Then you get posters saying the yes voters aren't open to discussion

I dont think Ive ever seen a situation where people were so stubbornly refusing to accept fact. Its like the denial of an alcoholic or drug addict. Literally being presented with factual evidence and still repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over. Its very weird!

traprunner · 13-05-2015 11:05AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/47027/0/

But don't let the true facts be confused with no voters 'facts'!

I never thought I would have to use the word true about facts.

timetogo · 13-05-2015 11:09AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont think Ive ever seen a situation where people were so stubbornly refusing to accept fact. Its like the denial of an alcoholic or drug addict. Literally being presented with factual evidence and still repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over. Its very weird!

My dad is hugely homophobic. He's made no bones about it over the years. He'll talk about "queers" and worse etc. to just try and get a rise out of people.

For this referendum he's been arguing about the rights of children as his reason for voting no. I can't talk to him about it. Reason doesn't enter the conversation. I'm absolutely not saying that he's representative of everybody but for any no voter I've talked with they're either voting no because of the children or because of their deeply held religious beliefs.

I can accept that those may be valid reasons in many peoples minds. Its just weird to me that I haven't met one person who is voting no because they don't like gay people.

Loafing Oaf · 13-05-2015 11:25AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It is apparent to me that the media are firmly behind the Yes camp. Pollsters are media organisations.
I could easily conduct a poll that would return a clear majority either way just by selecting where and among whom I conduct it.

The Irish Catholic is a media organisation, so they must be for yes right?

Have you any actual evidence of 'liberal bias' on the part of polling companies? If not your post is just tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering...

traprunner · 13-05-2015 11:28AM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The Irish Catholic is a media organisation, so they must be for yes right?

They are also a bank. You pay in for years and get nothing out just like most pension funds. So since they are obviously a big company they should by some peoples beliefs definitely be promoting a yes vote.

Not a NSA agent · 13-05-2015 12:27PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL

[ururl]

But I believe differently based on 0 evidence so he has to be wrong. Sure what would he know.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 12:47PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

But I believe differently based on 0 evidence so he has to be wrong. Sure what would he know.

What he doesnt realise is that IF we vote yes, then IF we dont repeal all other legislative acts, then IF we get a conservative government in the future, then IF they want to they can decide to stop gay people owning dogs and itll be easier to do that if the gay people arent married in the first place. So vote no to stop gay people owning dogs.

carveone · 13-05-2015 01:50PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont think Ive ever seen a situation where people were so stubbornly refusing to accept fact. Its like the denial of an alcoholic or drug addict. Literally being presented with factual evidence and still repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over. Its very weird!

I have - the Divorce Referendum. And the entire 1980s. Most of the 1990s before people decided they'd had enough and told the loonies to spuc off. And then we discovered what the government and church had been doing while telling us that we were twisted and evil and corrupt and shameful for standing there with our wooden bowl saying "please sir, can I have some more basic human rights?"

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:53PM

carveone wrote: »

I have - the Divorce Referendum. And the entire 1980s. Most of the 1990s before people decided they'd had enough and told the loonies to spuc off. And then we discovered what the government and church had been doing while telling us that we were twisted and evil and corrupt and shameful for standing there with our wooden bowl saying "please sir, can I have some more basic human rights?"

I dont remember the divorce referendum being so vitriolic myself. I remember when it passed my (now husband) came running down the aisle in the supermarket where we worked shouting "Divorce is in will you marry me!!!". (very romantic).

I remember even among my parents, my father was voting no, my mother was voting yes - doesnt take much brainpower to know who was afraid of being divorced eh??

carveone · 13-05-2015 02:08PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont remember the divorce referendum being so vitriolic myself.

It's quite possible it depended on your family - my father was voting no, mother yes as well but there was quite a bit of foam and rage from my father on it. My mother got my gran to vote yes too which didn't help

There was the whole poster campaign too - "hello divorce, goodbye daddy" was one I remember. But yeah, you're likely right - I admit my memory is quite possibly heavily skewed by previous campaigns (1986 campaign where you were told what to vote in mass - in our church anyway) and the dire and vicious 1983 referendum. The early 90s was the era when the Church lost its grip but also when Spuc and YD mounted some pretty unpleasant campaigns.

gravehold · 13-05-2015 02:16PM

carveone wrote: »

"hello divorce, goodbye daddy" .

This kinda did come true, we still really need to fix the rights of divorced dads in this country.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:21PM

carveone wrote: »

There was the whole poster campaign too - "hello divorce, goodbye daddy" was one I remember. But yeah, you're likely right - I admit my memory is quite possibly heavily skewed by previous campaigns (1986 campaign where you were told what to vote in mass - in our church anyway) and the dire and vicious 1983 referendum. The early 90s was the era when the Church lost its grip but also when Spuc and YD mounted some pretty unpleasant campaigns.

I remember that alright.

I think the divorce referendum was the first one I was eligible to vote in so I may not have paid too much attention to previous ones.

ByfocalPhoto · 13-05-2015 02:45PM

Loafing Oaf wrote:

Have you any actual evidence of 'liberal bias' on the part of polling companies? If not your post is just tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering...

Being an illegible foreigner I don't have a dog in this fight. I am a bemused bystander. The local radio stations seem to be flooding us with yes slanted warm fuzzies. All the polls are overwhelmingly yes but yes campaigners who actially know what is happening are redoubling their efforts.
The children's referendum was a shoe in according to the polls but it only scraped by.
From an outside viewpoint I smell an agenda.
A friend of mine worked for the UK statistics dept in the 70s. His team was told to produce statistics that show it will be good for Britain to join the common market. Not a new problem.
I will go. The mother ship is calling.

carveone · 13-05-2015 02:51PM

gravehold wrote: »

This kinda did come true, we still really need to fix the rights of divorced dads in this country.

But the posters meant it in the "middle aged men sauntering off into sunset with saucy mistress" sense and it seemed to work. Especially when hammered home with "people will end up penniless/homeless/etc". It might be worth noting when comparing it to this referendum that initial polls showed the yes side way way ahead. Over 70% yes if I remember rightly (doubt I remember last week at this stage). The No side was going for emotional scaremongering against the "entrenched liberal media and government and people talking about tolerance". And the Yes side was going for "ah we're grand - well ahead in the polls".

In the event the referendum squeaked in by the thinnest of margins - I'll have to go look it up...... Yikes! 9000 votes or 0.6%. Yeah. Pretty thin. I think it was young women voters that really turned it around at the end.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:54PM

carveone wrote: »

In the event the referendum squeaked in by the thinnest of margins - I'll have to go look it up...... Yikes! 9000 votes or 0.6%. Yeah. Pretty thin. I think it was young women voters that really turned it around at the end.

What I have always found bizarre about the divorce referendum is that it only squeaked through right? But yet afterwards we didnt have half the country campaigning to get rid of it, we didnt have a massive outcry etc...

They just accepted it and that was it!

Icepick · 13-05-2015 04:58PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Being an illegible foreigner I don't have a dog in this fight. I am a bemused bystander. The local radio stations seem to be flooding us with yes slanted warm fuzzies. All the polls are overwhelmingly yes but yes campaigners who actially know what is happening are redoubling their efforts.
The children's referendum was a shoe in according to the polls but it only scraped by.
From an outside viewpoint I smell an agenda.
A friend of mine worked for the UK statistics dept in the 70s. His team was told to produce statistics that show it will be good for Britain to join the common market. Not a new problem.
I will go. The mother ship is calling.

Evidence for any of your wild claims?

ByfocalPhoto · 13-05-2015 08:46PM

Icepick wrote: »

Evidence for any of your wild claims?

The radio station bit is my perception which is not scientific at all. I will listen more critically and note positive, negative and neutral mentions. I may yet stand corrected.

The children's referendum is clear cut. The government at the time was firmly behind a yes vote.
A redC poll said 74% yes, 4% no and 22% undecided.
http://www.thejournal.ie/redc-poll-childrens-rights-referendum-642356-Oct2012/
The final result was 58/42
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1111/345129-counting-of-childrens-referendum-votes-begins/
Draw from that what you will.

The Brit Govt manufactured stats ?
I worked for three years with the guy it happened to. I heard him tell the story a few times through clenched teeth. Not a high point of his career.
It is not one of those "someone I heard about" stories. I heard it from the horses mouth. I could give you his name but won't for obvious reasons.

JONJO THE MISER · 14-05-2015 12:05AM

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

meglome · 14-05-2015 12:16AM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

Bigots of all types make me pretty angry but attacking them in any way is completely wrong. I don't suppose they meant to hurt anyone if they were throwing eggs but still.

I am so tired of all the crap with every single referendum we have. They are never fought on the issues, especially by the no sides. They use any scaremongering tactics they can get away with. This is without doubt one of the simplest referenda we've ever voted on. Should gay people be allowed to legally marry. That's it. Not a single other thing. Nothing to do with adoption or anything else. Don't be tricked into a no vote when any right thinking person (with the facts) should be happy to vote Yes.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 12:17AM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

Disgusting a yes voter on twitter was saying a 10 year shouldn't have been out on the campaign as if that makes ot better she was attacked and also the yes "equality" videos show pushing kids forward at the doors out campaigning

https://twitter.com/WhyonaInstitute/status/598569389840019458

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4We5pxR18Ro

meglome · 14-05-2015 12:33AM

gravehold wrote: »

Disgusting a yes voter on twitter was saying a 10 year shouldn't have been out on the campaign as if that makes ot better she was attacked and also the yes "equality" videos show pushing kids forward at the doors out campaigning

Agree or disagree with the question but it's hardly 'disgusting' to ask it. Total exaggeration.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 12:35AM

meglome wrote: »

Agree or disagree with the question but it's hardly 'disgusting' to ask it. Total exaggeration.

It's victim blaming the 10 year old, it's like saying why was that women out in the short dress when she got raped.

K-9 · 14-05-2015 12:40AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont remember the divorce referendum being so vitriolic myself. I remember when it passed my (now husband) came running down the aisle in the supermarket where we worked shouting "Divorce is in will you marry me!!!". (very romantic).

I remember even among my parents, my father was voting no, my mother was voting yes - doesnt take much brainpower to know who was afraid of being divorced eh??

This is nothing om Divorce and Abortion referenda in the 80s or 90s.

And I've modded Lisbon 1 and 2 and a seismic general election, never seen before in the state.

meglome · 14-05-2015 12:42AM

gravehold wrote: »

It's victim blaming the 10 year old, it's like saying why was that women out in the short dress when she got raped.

I didn't say I agreed with the question I just wasn't convinced it was disgusting. And it's harder to be sympathetic when you bring your ten year old out to help you spread lies and FUD. Bad parenting.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 12:47AM

meglome wrote: »

I didn't say I agreed with the question I just wasn't convinced it was disgusting. And it's harder to be sympathetic when you bring your ten year old out to help you spread lies and FUD. Bad parenting.

Yes yes it's ok to send kids to the hospital cause you disagree with their opinions. :rolleyes:

What's you opinion on the yes "equality" video of the where the parents? push the girl (looks around the same age) up at the door to spread their lies and fud?

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments